Joe Horn

[Kevlar281]

11/14/07 - Joe Horn's 911 Call

11/26/07 - A man who told police he planned to kill two men he believed were burglarizing his neighbor's house shot them only when they came on his property and he felt threatened, his attorney said on Monday.

Full Article

11/29/07 - As the Pasadena Police Department continues to investigate a homeowner who shot and killed two men he saw allegedly burglarizing a neighbor's home, loved ones of the dead men gathered Wednesday to demand the shooter be prosecuted.

Full Article

12/03/07 - Protesters critical of a homeowner who fatally shot two suspected burglars were confronted by hundreds of the man's supporters during a rally on the street where the killings occurred. Yard signs declaring support for Joe Horn, 61, lined nearby streets.

Full Article

[DGTess]

In what state is it legal to shoot for property in someone else's home?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DGTess

In what state is it legal to shoot for property in someone else's home?

From this article:

"Texas law allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves if it is reasonable to believe they could otherwise be killed. In limited circumstances, people also can use deadly force to protect their neighbor's property; for example, if a homeowner asks a neighbor to watch over his property while he's out of town.
The question will be whether it was reasonable for Horn to fear the men and whether his earlier threats on the 911 call showed he planned to kill them no matter what, said Fred Moss, who teaches criminal law at Southern Methodist University.
"That's what makes it so hard and that's why we have juries," Moss said."

[DaemonSeid]

Whew..I thought it was Joe Horn, the football player.

You go Joe...I wished you lived next door to me when my house got robbed 2 years ago.....

"Horn's supporters parked motorcycles along the block Sunday and jeered protesters who called for Horn to be prosecuted. The supporters waved American flags and hoisted signs reading, "We love our neighbor for protecting our neighbors" and "Burglary is a risky business." "

and if you think that's crazy...see what breaking into someone's home for marijuana will get you:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...r_N.htm?csp=34

[sigmadiva]

I'm here in Houston where it happpend and we get almost hourly updates on this case.

The issue I think is not so much about race, but as a citizen protecting property, did he cross the line? From the 911 call, he did not seem to be directly threatened by the men and when cautioned by the 911 operator not to shoot, he still shot anyway.

I think in a legal sense Joe Horn was wrong because he did not have to do it, but morally he was protecting his neighbor.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I'm here in Houston where it happpend and we get almost hourly updates on this case.

The issue I think is not so much about race, but as a citizen protecting property, did he cross the line? From the 911 call, he did not seem to be directly threatened by the men and when cautioned by the 911 operator not to shoot, he still shot anyway.

I think in a legal sense Joe Horn was wrong because he did not have to do it, but morally he was protecting his neighbor.

I so agree...he was instructed by the 911 ops NOT TO SHOOT....he never came to harm, his life was never threatened.

The most he should have done was put down th gun and shoot with a camera.

The cops arrived right when the suspects were fleeing the scene, they probably could have caught them

[Kevin]

From the Texas Penal Code:

§ 9.41. Protection of One's Own Property


(a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property.

(b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or


(2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.


§ 9.42. Deadly Force to Protect Property


A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and


(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or


(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and



(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or


(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.



§ 9.43. Protection of Third Person's Property


A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if, under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:

(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or


(2) the actor reasonably believes that:

(A) the third person has requested his protection of the land or property;


(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third person's land or property; or


(C) the third person whose land or property he uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent, or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.



§ 9.44. Use of Device to Protect Property


The justification afforded by Sections 9.41 and 9.43 applies to the use of a device to protect land or tangible, movable property if:

(1) the device is not designed to cause, or known by the actor to create a substantial risk of causing, death or serious bodily injury; and


(2) use of the device is reasonable under all the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be when he installs the device.

[Kevin]

FWIW, I don't think charges even get filed. Under 9.43, I think he's clear -- at least so long as he had his neighbor's consent in all of this.

[nittanyalum]

^^^LOL. Deadly force to prevent criminal mischief during the nighttime. Gotta love Texas. Joe'll stay a free man...

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by DGTess

In what state is it legal to shoot for property in someone else's home?

I'm pretty certain it's legal in Florida as well. If you're trespassing and the homeowner feels that you're a threat, the homeowner can use deadly force.

[Tom Earp]

Yea Joe!

Maybe it will put a stop to a lot of things!!!!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DGTess

In what state is it legal to shoot for property in someone else's home?

Clearly, Texas.

[PeppyGPhiB]

What if this guy, or someone else in a similar situation, shot someone who was supposed to be at the house, just not known to the shooter? What if it was a family member, or a friend that wanted to get his tools back after the neighbor borrowed them? What if it was dark outside and the shooter couldn't even see who it was?

I'm thinking of all the times I've gone over to my family's house at night when they've been out of town. I'm glad my family doesn't have a psycho neighbor that fires his gun at just anyone he doesn't know that's on someone else's property!

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

What if this guy, or someone else in a similar situation, shot someone who was supposed to be at the house, just not known to the shooter? What if it was a family member, or a friend that wanted to get his tools back after the neighbor borrowed them? What if it was dark outside and the shooter couldn't even see who it was?

I'm thinking of all the times I've gone over to my family's house at night when they've been out of town. I'm glad my family doesn't have a psycho neighbor that fires his gun at just anyone he doesn't know that's on someone else's property!

I think judging from the tone of the 911 call...it was clear (wasn't it?) that the guys were robbing the house...and the fact that they ran from a guy wielding a shotgun was even more evident.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by Kevin

FWIW, I don't think charges even get filed. Under 9.43, I think he's clear -- at least so long as he had his neighbor's consent in all of this.

I disagree, there's a difference between being asked to watch/defend/etc your neighbor's house and calling 911 because you happen to see something over there. It's never been made clear that he was asked to keep an eye on that house.

Honestly the fact that he said "I'll kill 'em" on the way out the door with his gun negates the defense that the burglars shot because they were on his property. And if he'd been asked to defend his neighbor's property then it wouldn't have mattered that they supposedly only were shot after crossing the property line.

Sorry, this guy went out with a gun into a situation that was not a deadly one and decided to be judge/jury/executioner. He could very well have shot a cop since, as the 911 operator said, there were officers coming on to the scene who were not in uniform. Vigilantes put innocent people in danger. Just because Batman makes it look cool, doesn't mean it's a good idea to do in real life.